So you admit you insulted him outside of the Pit. What’s so hard about starting a Pit thread where your OP was, “No, your “the insult” you doo-doo-head.” You get to say what you wanted to say and all is cool beans.
I normally don’t post in these threads, but I agree with the explanation and feel that it’s very reasonable. Without the history then a mod note would be appropriate but I can see how you would want to send a stronger message.
I think the Warning was quite wrong because, as SenorBeef states, the insult was clearly embedded in a false hypothetical. But even ignoring that, the rule about insults seems unclear and arbitrary.
Here’s a post in MundanePointless that did NOT get a Warning.
Was this less [insert adjective compliant with rules] than calling someone a “loser”? Does it avoid a warning just because it doesn’t contain a syntactical structure clearly of the form “Septimus is [bad word]”?
It’s a *lot *more circumspect than just a different syntax - Bones goes out of his way to just point out what people have actually said and then said people can make their own inferences, he doesn’t state what he’s inferred himself. That’s different from just mirroring some else’s insult back at them, as SenorBeef did.
I ain’t fallin for that one.
If the other poster got a warning (or banned) at least there is some consistency.
Whether justified or not is for the Mods to determine.
I do have a problem with the warning never being removed.
It doesn’t seem any worse than what you posted in response:
A group of words cannot be “an asshole”, so that sure looks like a not-so-thinly veiled insult to me. Maybe the mods were just not handing out many warnings that day. I’ve seen it happen before.
All I read was “Turns out you’re the bigger loser”. Explaining in 600 friggin paragraphs (that I ignored) what your though process was does not change the meaning of “Turns out you’re the bigger loser”. That’s pretty black and white.
Here’s the thing, Beef. You know you didn’t intend an insult with your comment. Dajn likely didn’t receive it as an insult. It’s also very likely that most of the moderators, after more than a passing moment of reflection realize it wasn’t an insult.
But we also know that the line for moderation has migrated so far through the fuzzy gray area that comments even passingly close to “maybe possibly an insult” are going to get moderated. Dajn was an obvious troll - you shouldn’t have taken the bait, and this is your punishment. It’s also a good reminder that context is no longer under consideration. Hell - they should just bring lissener back and make him Chief Moderator at this point.
He needs to remember that technically they are correct, and for some people that really is the best kind of correct.
Context, history, common sense, none of that matters, he called him a loser and thats that. Thats what moderation on this board is.
Wow, you can post that with a straight face even after reading post 43, where Idle Thoughts explicitly lays out the context and history that influenced his judgement?
I saw it and waffled on giving him a note or warning for it, actually…but finally decided, after a few minutes thought, that it was attacking the post and not the poster. YMMV.
There was nothing “maybe possibly an insult” about it.
“You’re the bigger loser” is a very clear insult, there is no mistaking it for anything else when it’s put that way, with those words.
The only way “You’re the biggest loser” could not be taken as an insult is if you’re participating in a weight-loss reality show.
This is what I don’t understand about those who simply bitch about the moderation of the board. Here’s a chance for them to engage and clarify their thoughts, as Idle Thoughts has done but instead we get knee jerk reactions. This really makes it that much harder to accept the complaints.
Can I get a clarification? Is that particular phrasing deemed acceptable on a go forward basis? If so, it has the same construction as “What a cunty thing to say” - would that be acceptable?
In general, would the construction, “what a [explicative] thing to say” be kosher? I’m trying to determine how that phrasing was about the post.
I’d really rather not, since this thread isn’t about that and I don’t really want to turn the topic into a discussion about a whole other, different case. You can feel free to make a new topic in the issue if you want, though.
Or I’ll PM you with my opinion right now.
Actually, the construction would be “what a cunt thing to say”. Your construction would be correct had the original post been “what an assholish thing to say”. But it wasn’t that.
I agree with SenorBeef. He was not calling anyone a loser. He was pointing out the absurdity of the argument.
Example:
Poster A: George W. Bush is a racist because he did not have a black vice-president.
Poster B: I guess Barack Obama is a racist as well, huh?
Is Poster B calling Obama a racist? No, he’s not. For the very same reason SenorBeef was not calling the first poster a “loser.”
Irrelevant. SenorBeef insulted another member in the first person , so your comparison is invalid.